LargeMarge wrote:The review states "Vegetarians who eat fish will survive here." Vegetarians who eat fish are not vegetarians. This is the second review in less than a year that made that mistake.

It may be galling to some, but the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (5th Ed.) does indeed allow for the flexibility of the English language in this case. It defines "vegetarian" as:

"A person who on principle abstains from animal food; esp. one who avoids meat but will consume dairy produce and eggs and sometimes also fish."

That strange that that version of the Oxford dictionary would say that when the OED online would state that vegetarianism is "The doctrine or practice of vegetarians; abstention from eating meat, fish, or other animal products."

Regardless, the separation of fish from the term "meat" isn't new, and Linda's use of the phrase "vegetarians who eat fish" is neither unique nor a mistake--it's a distinction commonly made in colloquial English.

(For what it's worth, I'm on your side on this. Fish, poultry, game, beef, pork--it's all "meat" to me, and eating any of it means not observing a vegetarian diet. But language is an animal in the wild, and the quest to tame it is often fruitless.)

LargeMarge wrote:That strange that that version of the Oxford dictionary would say that...

My 4th Ed Shorter OED has the same definition as TBP's. It also says cf. vegan. I cf-ed, and found "A total vegetarian," which sounds amusingly informal for the OED when you read it with a "total tool" inflection.

The Dept of Agriculture and the FDA allow small percentages of "other matter" in foods and insects are one of the prime components of the gook that enters processed foods. Or even just in my raw sunflower seeds....

And that raises a question for my esteemed colleagues: can a vegetarian eat insects and still be a total vegetarian? I've never seen this topic broached before.